ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS. REPRESENTATION

From the statement of the renowned Polish poet, it is clear that the existence of a state directly depends on the existence of law within its territory. Since, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the state is as much a participant in social relations as its citizens or any legal entity, without any privileges before the court, such individuals are entitled to file an administrative lawsuit to demand that a decision, action, or inaction of a public authority be recognized as inconsistent with the requirements of the law and to seek its annulment.

Administrative courts in Ukraine consider such matters according to the rules set forth in the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

First and foremost, it should be clarified that the administrative hierarchy of the judicial branch of power in Ukraine is represented by local administrative courts (regional administrative courts in the provinces, as well as in the cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol), appellate administrative courts (the First Appellate Administrative Court in Kramatorsk, with territorial jurisdiction over Donetsk and Luhansk regions; the Second Appellate Administrative Court in Kharkiv, with jurisdiction over Poltava, Sumy, and Kharkiv regions; the Third Appellate Administrative Court in Dnipro, covering Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kirovohrad regions; the Fourth Appellate Administrative Court in Sevastopol, responsible for the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol; the Fifth Appellate Administrative Court in Odesa, serving Mykolaiv, Odesa, and Kherson regions; the Sixth Appellate Administrative Court in Kyiv, with jurisdiction over Kyiv, Cherkasy, and Chernihiv regions, as well as the city of Kyiv; the Seventh Appellate Administrative Court in Vinnytsia, overseeing Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Khmelnytskyi, and Chernivtsi regions; and the Eighth Appellate Administrative Court in Lviv, which has jurisdiction over Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, and Ternopil regions), as well as the Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court.

If the dispute is under the jurisdiction of the Ivano-Frankivsk District Administrative Court, this court will review it as the court of first instance. Its decision may be appealed to the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal, and any cassation complaints against the rulings of these courts will be reviewed by the Higher Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court.

Alongside this, there is a certain category of administrative cases that are considered by the local court of general jurisdiction; however, their decisions are reviewed by the appellate court of the administrative branch of the judiciary. In other words, if the Irpin City Court of Kyiv Oblast issues a judicial decision following the rules of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of Ukraine, that decision will be reviewed in an appellate manner not by the Kyiv Court of Appeal, but by the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the decision will also be subject to cassation review by the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court.

As previously mentioned, the jurisdiction of administrative courts extends to legal relations arising in connection with the exercise of authority by entities vested with administrative powers, with a clear distinction made regarding subject matter and tiered jurisdiction.

In particular, local general courts, as administrative courts, have jurisdiction over cases related to administrative liability, matters concerning the electoral process or referendum process, appeals against actions of electoral or precinct commissions, the clarification of voter lists, and so on.

At that time, district administrative courts hear cases related to disputes between individuals or legal entities and subjects of public authority regarding the appeal of their decisions, disputes concerning the admission of citizens to public service, its passage and termination, appeals against the decisions of certification, competitive, medical and social expert committees, the formation of governmental bodies, local self-government bodies, and the election, appointment, or dismissal of their officials, among other matters.

The Appeals Administrative Court, in addition to reviewing decisions made by local courts of general jurisdiction that handled cases under the rules of the Administrative Court Procedure Code of Ukraine, also hears administrative cases as a court of first instance. These include challenges to decisions, actions, or inactions of the Central Election Commission, actions of presidential candidates and their authorized representatives, cases concerning the prohibition of political parties, as well as lawsuits related to the forced expropriation of land for public necessity, among others.

The Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court not only reviews cases in cassation regarding decisions made by courts of first and appellate instances but also hears cases as a court of first instance concerning the establishment of election results or national referendums by the Central Election Commission, cases regarding petitions for the early termination of the powers of a Member of Parliament of Ukraine, and cases related to the appeal of acts, actions, or omissions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine, the High Council of Justice, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, and others.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reviews judicial decisions in cases examined by the Cassation Administrative Court of the Supreme Court as a court of first instance through an appellate process.

The High Anti-Corruption Court addresses administrative cases concerning the application of specific types of sanctions, acting as a court of first instance, while the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court reviews its decisions in an appellate manner, functioning as a court of appeals.

Given the extensive subject matter jurisdiction of administrative cases and the often complicated appellate jurisdiction characterized by significant variability in legal positions and numerous contentious issues—both regarding the jurisdiction of specific categories of cases and the means of legal protection within these categories—appropriate legal representation can only be provided by a specialist: a lawyer with expertise in administrative law who possesses adequate knowledge and skills for handling cases in the administrative process.

Representation of interests in administrative courts can be carried out either through self-representation or by an attorney specialized in administrative matters. The attorney has the right to perform all procedural actions on behalf of the person they represent, just as that person could.

Administrative proceedings are largely similar to other forms of litigation, such as civil or commercial cases, although they have their own specific features. Notably, these include aspects related to the timing of appeals to the court, which can be revisited even after the initiation of proceedings. Administrative law also imposes stricter penalties for the abuse of procedural rights and has somewhat different rules for the submission of evidence, among other differences. However, the primary distinction of the administrative process compared to others is that the burden of proof in administrative cases lies with the authority whose actions, inaction, or decisions are being challenged. Therefore, in administrative matters, it is the responsibility of the entity making the decision to demonstrate the legality of that decision. If that entity fails to prove the lawfulness of its ruling with appropriate and admissible evidence, the court will recognize that decision as unlawful.

The role of an administrative law attorney is fundamentally similar to the rights and duties of a lawyer in civil or commercial proceedings. Thus, when seeking the services of an administrative law attorney, a client receives a consultation based on the review of case materials and the specialist’s opinion regarding the potential outcomes of the case, regardless of the stage of the proceedings and the client’s procedural status. An administrative law attorney can also assist in gathering the necessary evidence for preparing a claim, a response to a claim, and other procedural documents. During the court proceedings, the administrative lawyer will familiarize themselves with the case materials, draft the relevant procedural documents, and prepare the necessary motions aimed at achieving the desired results. They will provide explanations on the substance of the case and participate in court debates, among other tasks.

As a rule, any court decision will leave one of the parties dissatisfied, prompting the attorney handling administrative matters to prepare either an appellate complaint or a response to an appellate complaint and participate in court hearings according to the rules governing the proceedings in the first instance, with only minor differences. A similar situation occurs with the cassation review of decisions made by lower courts.

One of the biggest challenges in judicial proceedings is the enforcement of court decisions, as the value of such a ruling is null if it remains unexecuted. Therefore, a lawyer’s work in administrative cases does not end once the court’s decision becomes legally binding; it continues until full enforcement is achieved.

Qualified legal services in administrative matters are essential at all stages, starting from the identification of the violated right to the full enforcement of the court’s decision or the conclusion of the case. This necessity arises because rights may be infringed not only for those seeking their protection in court but also for those against whom such claims have been unjustly brought. In such circumstances, an appropriate defense of their rights would involve a complete dismissal of the claims made against them or the closure of the proceedings (leaving the claim without consideration).